It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadesofGrey
This may seem like a stupid question but can anyone explain exactly why Global Warming is bad for the planet and humanity?


There's a ton of reason, not the least of which is the rapid removal of alot of arable lands...

It's also more than the physical cause and effect for some people. Some people have faith in their fellow humans, and we'd like to see people say "Damn it... we added to this mess, now lets be men and women about it and at least pretend we give a damn...."




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
spOOner:
even youknow that you can proof anything these day's no matter wat....
where you must look at is who is paying for the investigation..couse his opinion will be the outcome of it..for example:
a telephone comp. will do everything to proof that the radiation of phone transmitters is not a danger to humans....



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Supercharger not electronic, my bad, belt driven.

Both consume more gasoline. That is the point, to burn more gasoline. Upon take-off, they consume more gasoline. If you are not racing a car, there is no point in having a turbocharge for efficiency, it only allows for more gas consumption


Supercharger Disadvantages
Best of Both Worlds
Volkswagen has recently released a "Twincharger" engine on a Golf GT. The Twincharger comes with both a supercharger and a turbocharger. At low engine RPM, the supercharger blasts air into the cylinders to enhance low-end torque. At high RPM, when exhaust gases have been produced in sufficient quantity, the turbocharger kicks in to increase top-end performance. The GT, which is available only in Europe, hits 62 miles per hour in 7.9 seconds. It can also reach 136 miles per hour while still delivering 39 miles per gallon.
The biggest disadvantage of superchargers is also their defining characteristic: Because the crankshaft drives them, they must steal some of the engine's horsepower. A supercharger can consume as much as 20 percent of an engine's total power output. But because a supercharger can generate as much as 46 percent additional horsepower, most think the trade-off is worth it.

Supercharging puts an added strain on the engine, which needs to be strong to handle the extra boost and bigger explosions. Most manufacturers account for this by specifying heavy-duty components when they design an engine intended for supercharged use. This makes the vehicle more expensive. Superchargers also cost more to maintain, and most manufacturers suggest high-octane premium-grade gas.

Despite their disadvantages, superchargers are still the most cost-effective way to increase horsepower. Superchargers can result in power increases of 50 to 100 percent, making them great for racing, towing heavy loads or just adding excitement to the typical driving experience.

To learn more about superchargers and related topics, check out the links on the next page.



auto.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Plus they go at speeds we just do not need or use. Cars should all be governed imo to about 70 mph. there’s just no need for speed for the average Joe in his car. Less speed also means less pollution and more importantly more lives saved.


That's what speed limits are for, however, there's no way to legislate the top speed of a car. Nor will there ever be. We have 80mph speed limits in parts of the US, Montana didn't even have a daytime limit for a while, and ALOT of people don't drive 100. You just notice the ones that do.

Also, I race my car all summer, a 70mph speed limiter would suck... right up until I pop open the lap top and remove it. Which anyone can do with the right software.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
Supercharger not electronic, my bad, belt driven.

Both consume more gasoline. That is the point, to burn more gasoline. Upon take-off, they consume more gasoline. If you are not racing a car, there is no point in having a turbocharge for efficiency, it only allows for more gas consumption


Supercharger Disadvantages
Best of Both Worlds
Volkswagen has recently released a "Twincharger" engine on a Golf GT. The Twincharger comes with both a supercharger and a turbocharger. At low engine RPM, the supercharger blasts air into the cylinders to enhance low-end torque. At high RPM, when exhaust gases have been produced in sufficient quantity, the turbocharger kicks in to increase top-end performance. The GT, which is available only in Europe, hits 62 miles per hour in 7.9 seconds. It can also reach 136 miles per hour while still delivering 39 miles per gallon.
The biggest disadvantage of superchargers is also their defining characteristic: Because the crankshaft drives them, they must steal some of the engine's horsepower. A supercharger can consume as much as 20 percent of an engine's total power output. But because a supercharger can generate as much as 46 percent additional horsepower, most think the trade-off is worth it.

Supercharging puts an added strain on the engine, which needs to be strong to handle the extra boost and bigger explosions. Most manufacturers account for this by specifying heavy-duty components when they design an engine intended for supercharged use. This makes the vehicle more expensive. Superchargers also cost more to maintain, and most manufacturers suggest high-octane premium-grade gas.

Despite their disadvantages, superchargers are still the most cost-effective way to increase horsepower. Superchargers can result in power increases of 50 to 100 percent, making them great for racing, towing heavy loads or just adding excitement to the typical driving experience.

To learn more about superchargers and related topics, check out the links on the next page.



auto.howstuffworks.com...



How prophetic... I do race. All summer.

The reason you use FI is to get more power from a smaller engine, that weighs less and therefore has a higher power to weight ratio. This acually saves gas as well. What you end up with, in my case for instance, is a car that performs like a small V8 but gets over 30mpg on the highway.

A blower is only being used when you push the foot 100% of the way down, other than that you have it free spinning in a vacuum. Eaton charts show less than 1hp draw at anything less than full throttle. So you get a 2L gas sipper at part throttle, and a 4L V6/8 at full throttle. You only use MORE GAS when you're FULL THROTTLE.

So you see, I attempted to solve two problems to myself. I have a racing capable car 3 months of the year, and it still gets 30+ mpg to work and back, where I spend 90% of my driving.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by sp00ner]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Spooner...
i agree with you!.. since we are still use year 1880 technics to light oure houses!!!!
come on...the technic to get ride of it we have at for a long time in house!
now the test the halogene ore led bulbs insmall amounts......

be fair! its all buissness!!!! why must we pay moore for cleaner fuel ore technic's.......if you called youre energy provider to cut you of the system couse you have an alternative way to provide in energy...you will deal a big problem with youre gouvrment!



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The point I was making was that turbochargers consume more gasoline and are not fuel efficient, hence the racing aspect. Fuel efficient for racing but not everyday driving. Turbocharges are impractical as far as consumer cars are concerned. They consume more gasoline than a naturally aspirated engine.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
The point I was making was that turbochargers consume more gasoline and are not fuel efficient, hence the racing aspect. Fuel efficient for racing but not everyday driving. Turbocharges are impractical as far as consumer cars are concerned. They consume more gasoline than a naturally aspirated engine.


This is only true if everyone didn't care about speed and power. Which they do. You cannot change human nature, but you can offer them things that appease both sides of the equation without having to make a large sacrifice. Effectively you ARE allowing them to save fuel.

Think of it this way... all the people driving 4-cyl turbos would likely be driving V8 guzzlers if there wasn't an option. Now, we can choose to have both.

This is why I don't see the reason for Hybrids. The people that drive a 41 mpg hybrid would likely be driving a 38 mpg non-hybrid.

I just want to apologize now, I have help to completely derail this thread. It's just that I've done alot of actual research on this stuff, and have the ability to retune, recalibrate, and test things on several different cars, and when car talk comes up, I can't stop.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ressiv
spOOner:
even youknow that you can proof anything these day's no matter wat....
where you must look at is who is paying for the investigation..couse his opinion will be the outcome of it..for example:
a telephone comp. will do everything to proof that the radiation of phone transmitters is not a danger to humans....


Sure, but then you'd think a government run agency would downplay the amount of emissions form a car vs. a volcano. Wouldn't they?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
We already get blamed for everything. How about some of the third world countries that have no restrictions as compaired to our small restrictions.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
We already get blamed for everything.


The counter to the growing anti-american sentiment is a big 'F-U' mentality.

I can come up with a list that's longer than this site will allow that can point out the failings of about 200 countries around the world. Of course, then I'd be considered an arrogant american.

At this point, there is a TON of people in this country that believe things about global warming. It's amazing how many foreigners know this country like the back of their hands having been here once, twice, never, but we're arrogant.

In this world, everyone needs everyone. Funny, most of the americans I see on here would seem to share that sentiment, yet I keep seeing things like "the world doesn't need america". "American's are all stupid and ignorant..."... and we're arrogant? Interesting...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
No, this is why.

Global Warming is a theory, and there is a lot of doubt about just how it's happening, even though you won't hear this on the news (which likes alarmism, as it sells). And even if the Earth is warming as they predict (it is, in fact, warming, but to what extent isn't known for sure), it's not proven that humans are the cause.

Also, it depends on what you want to do about it. The Kyoto Protocol is a terrible, terrible idea. Read up on it and you'll see why.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
it's not proven that humans are the cause.


Exactly... and why act when it's only a 90% probabilty...

"Sir... you have cancer. You have a 90% chance to die without treatment.... "
"Oh! Man, and I was worred about dying..."

"Sir, if you try to swin across the channel, you have a 90% chance of dying..."
"Ok, well that's nothing to fear...."

Right... why act when there's the tiniest chance that you can completly deny it...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Where'd you get this "90% probability" crap?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00ner

Originally posted by Johnmike
it's not proven that humans are the cause.


Exactly... and why act when it's only a 90% probabilty...

"Sir... you have cancer. You have a 90% chance to die without treatment.... "
"Oh! Man, and I was worred about dying..."

"Sir, if you try to swin across the channel, you have a 90% chance of dying..."
"Ok, well that's nothing to fear...."

Right... why act when there's the tiniest chance that you can completly deny it...


Now you have to question the calculation of 90%. We aren't even certain our calculations are correct.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
There's no calculated probability, it's either true or not. And the "treatment," the Kyoto Protocol, causes a large amount of economic damage but does little to help prevent Global Warming. It's useless, I reckon that "developing" nations want the USA to adopt it to help them take some economic power away.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Like I have said many times... I will not buy into this hate America first crap. First of all we didn't start global warming. We created a society the rest of the world NOW desires to have. It is not us that should pay for the mistaken domestic policies of the rest of the world for the last 500 years. This is a giant ploy to kill us economically.

The rest of the world could just fall off the face of the earth for all I care. I will continue to mow my small patch of lawn with my gas guzzling 1970 lawn tractor. I will continue to burn enormous amounts of fossil fuels getting to work. I will now burn two bags of charcoal when I cook my cow!

There is no global warming and if there is we are not causing it. Who in their right mind falls for this crap? In the 70's they said we were headed toward an ICE age. In fact I think they said that by the year 2000 millions would be dead from starvation. Now it’s the other way around? In 30 years we solved the ICE age issue. I'll bet any amount of money that in 30 years the UN will be bit$hing about another ICE age...


What ever. I just pushed my remote starter. I'm going to let my SUV idle in the driveway for a while...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Form 1945 to the early 1970's there was serious concern of a global ice age. Within those 30 plus years we had a trend of cooling. No ice age though.... Who did they blame then? Welll us of course!

Now we have global warming and we are to blame again. Don't fall for it people. Just Google global cooling and be done with it. The people that post this global warming crap are either uneducated or they are paid disinformation agents.

I hear the guy that invented the Internet even believes this?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
Here is an article that that discusses our level of ignorance as a nation when it comes to global warming. It doesn't help when your president doens't want to be bothered with little things like global warming! He's a War president anyway


Global warming is here and denying it will not make it go away.




Here is one reason some educated folks are skeptical regarding Americans role in global warming....

www.museum.state.il.us...

It seems the North American continent has been warming for 16,000 yrs. This warming started long before there were any lazy, glutonous, fat, over priviledged, wasteful, tunnel visioned, ignorant, modern Americans.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Redistribution of wealth via the kyoto treaty using the unproven global warming theory is why this american is skeptical of the global warming hysteria.

www.sciencebits.com...

The above link is a good read, but if you prefer hatefilled blame america tactics dont bother as it might contradict your beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join